Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
328 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2026 54 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences2026In State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 565 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), the Kansas Supreme Court held that to find an error harmless under K.S.A. 60-261, K.S.A. 60-2105, and the United States Constitution, a Kansas court must be able to declare the error "did not affect a party's substantial rights, meaning it will not or did not affect the trial's outcome." 5 When applying the harmless error test to an error that implicates a statutory right, not a federal constitutional right, the party benefiting from the error must persuade the court that there is a reasonable probability that the error will not or did 2026In State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 565 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), the Kansas Supreme Court held that to find an error harmless under K.S.A. 60-261, K.S.A. 60-2105, and the United States Constitution, a Kansas court must be able to declare the error "did not affect a party's substantial rights, meaning it will not or did not affect the trial's outcome." 5 When applying the harmless error test to an error that implicates a statutory right, not a federal constitutional right, the party benefiting from the error must persuade the court that there is a reasonable probability that the error will not or did | 5 | 38 |
State v. Reynared2 sentences2017See Reyna, 290 Kan. at 681 ("[T]his court will apply the harmless error analysis to the omission of an element from the instructions to the jury when a review of the evidence leads to the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error."). 2016See Reyna, 290 Kan. at 681 ("[T]his court will apply the harmless error analysis to the omission of an element from the instructions to the jury when a review of the evidence leads to the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error."). | 4 | 10 |
Chapman v. Californiayellow2 sentences2026None of these three factors is individually controlling, and the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed result of trial), have been met. 2026None of these three factors is individually controlling, and the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed result of trial), have been met. | 3 | 63 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176, 182-83 , 224 P.3d 553 (2010); see also State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 62 , 91 P.3d 1147 (2004) (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 4 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 [1999], holding that the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 [1967], applies to a jury instruction that omits an element of an offense). 6 Gleason concedes that he did not object to the challenged instruction at trial except for an aspect of the instruction that was removed and is not at issue in this appeal. 2024State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176, 182-83 , 224 P.3d 553 (2010); see also State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 62 , 91 P.3d 1147 (2004) (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 4 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 [1999], holding that the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 [1967], applies to a jury instruction that omits an element of an offense). 6 Gleason concedes that he did not object to the challenged instruction at trial except for an aspect of the instruction that was removed and is not at issue in this appeal. | 3 | 12 |
Washington v. Recuencogreen2 sentences2011In doing so, this court applied the federal constitutional harmless error standard of Chapman, 386 U.S. 18 , stating: “[T]his court will apply the harmless error analysis to the omission of an element from the instructions to the jury when a review of the evidence leads to the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.” Reyna, 290 Kan. at 681 (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 , 165 L. 2011In doing so, this court applied the federal constitutional harmless error standard of Chapman, 386 U.S. 18 , stating: “[T]his court will apply the harmless error analysis to the omission of an element from the instructions to the jury when a review of the evidence leads to the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.” Reyna, 290 Kan. at 681 (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 , 165 L. | 2 | 9 |
State v. Danielsgreen2 sentences2024State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176, 182-83 , 224 P.3d 553 (2010); see also State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 62 , 91 P.3d 1147 (2004) (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 4 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 [1999], holding that the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 [1967], applies to a jury instruction that omits an element of an offense). 6 Gleason concedes that he did not object to the challenged instruction at trial except for an aspect of the instruction that was removed and is not at issue in this appeal. 2024State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176, 182-83 , 224 P.3d 553 (2010); see also State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 62 , 91 P.3d 1147 (2004) (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 4 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 35 [1999], holding that the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 [1967], applies to a jury instruction that omits an element of an offense). 6 Gleason concedes that he did not object to the challenged instruction at trial except for an aspect of the instruction that was removed and is not at issue in this appeal. | 2 | 7 |
| State v. Nunezgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Broxtongreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Shannon P.green | 2 | 2 |
| In re G.F.green | 2 | 2 |
State v. Albrightgreen2 sentences2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v. 2010Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 [ 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." McReynolds, 288 Kan. at 323 , 202 P.3d 658 . | 1 | 11 |
State v. Toshred2 sentences2016Crim. 9 , 133 P. 263, 264 (1913): "'This court stands squarely for the doctrine of harmless error, but it is equally committed to the doctrine that fairness must prevail in the trial of criminal cases.'" Tosh, 278 Kan. at 98 . 2016Crim. 9 , 133 P. 263, 264 (1913): "'This court stands squarely for the doctrine of harmless error, but it is equally committed to the doctrine that fairness must prevail in the trial of criminal cases.'" Tosh, 278 Kan. at 98 . | 1 | 7 |
State v. Longstaffgreen2 sentences2018If the State argues that admission of the evidence was harmless, we conduct a harmless error analysis as detailed in State v. Longstaff , 296 Kan. 884 , 895, 299 P.3d 268 (2013). 2018If the State argues that admission of the evidence was harmless, we conduct a harmless error analysis as detailed in State v. Longstaff , 296 Kan. 884 , 895, 299 P.3d 268 (2013). | 1 | 6 |
Daniels v. Kansasgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 62 , 91 P.3d 1147 (holding that the omission of an essential element of an offense from the jury instructions is subject to the harmless error test), cert. denied 543 U.S. 982 (2004). 2010Garza also argues the harmless error analysis recognized in State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53 , 91 P.3d 1147 , cert. denied 543 U.S. 982 (2004), does not apply because of the importance assigned to the right to have a jury determine each element of the offense under Apprendi . | 1 | 6 |
State v. Dixonyellow2 sentences2013If a case presents alternative means of committing the offense and the record does not provide sufficient evidence supporting each of the alternative means, foe conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. 290 Kan. at 205-06 (specifically disapproving of the harmless error analysis applied in State v. Dixon, 279 Kan. 563 , 112 P.3d 883 [2005]). 2013If a case presents alternative means of committing the offense and the record does not provide sufficient evidence supporting each of the alternative means, foe conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. 290 Kan. at 205-06 (specifically disapproving of the harmless error analysis applied in State v. Dixon, 279 Kan. 563 , 112 P.3d 883 [2005]). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2026In its 2022 decision, the Court of Appeals relied on Jones, 290 Kan. 373 , among others, to conclude it was duty-bound to treat the violation as structural error requiring reversal. 2025See State v. Johnson, 310 Kan. 909 , 913-14, 453 P.3d 281 (2019); State v. Jones, 290 Kan. 373, 382-83 , 228 P.3d 394 (2010) (A violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel constitutes structural error; "[e]rrors are structural when they 'defy analysis by "harmless-error standards"' because they 'affect[] the framework within which the trial proceeds.'"). | 1 | 3 |
State v. McDonaldgreen2 sentences2026State v. McDonald, 29 Kan. App. 2d 6, 9-11 , 26 P.3d 69 (2001). 7 The State argues that Odell obtained the benefit of the bargain when he "received dismissal of several other charges, along with an entire case" and the State's support of an O.R. bond. 2026See McDonald, 29 Kan. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Blansettgreen2 sentences2026The State argues that we should follow the path taken by the Duckworth panel and perform the harmless error test from State v. Bentley, 317 Kan. 222 , 526 P.3d 1060 (2023). 2024And that would be the case for every defendant who enters a plea, yet the harmless error analysis should apply to pleas as well as to jury verdicts. 8 The State, noting that difference, invites us to consider the more focused harmless error approach set out in Bentley, 317 Kan. at 224. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Plummergreen2 sentences2024Predictably, Reynolds embraces Wright and demands a new trial on the dwelling alternative, while the State again urges us to overrule Wright and replace it with a typical harmless error analysis, citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), and State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012). 11 Disapproving precedent is not taken lightly. 2024Predictably, Reynolds embraces Wright and demands a new trial on the dwelling alternative, while the State again urges us to overrule Wright and replace it with a typical harmless error analysis, citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), and State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012). 11 Disapproving precedent is not taken lightly. | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Lopezgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Noahgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Richardsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Bordersgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Siruta Ex Rel. Heirs at Law of Siruta v. Sirutagreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Ultrerasgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Kleypasyellow | 1 | 2 |
| Hager v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Rushen v. Spaingreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Wrightred | 1 | 2 |
| State v. McCulloughgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Murrayyellow | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Manngreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Fultongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. HILL, JR.green | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Highgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Seymour v. United States
green
2 sentences2017Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), which we have long summarized as follows: "[T]he error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). 2017Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), which we have long summarized as follows: "[T]he error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). | 14 | 2001–2017 |
Chapman v. California
green
2 sentences2021To make that second decision, the court must assess whether the fundamental failure affected a party's substantial rights under the harmless error statutes, K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-261 and K.S.A. 60-2105, if a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution is not implicated; but if a constitutional right is implicated, the error must be assessed under the constitutional harmless error standard in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967). 2014“If any one of the errors involves a constitutional violation, the harmless error standard stated in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), must be applied to the determination of whether the defendant was denied a fair trial.” State v. Armstrong, 299 Kan. 405 , Syl. ¶ 10, 324 P.3d 1052 (2014). | 11 | 2008–2021 |
State v. McReynolds
green
2 sentences2022Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22-24,] 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error . . . changed the result of the trial], have been met.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009). 2022Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22-24,] 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error . . . changed the result of the trial], have been met.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009). | 8 | 2010–2022 |
State v. Swinney
green
2 sentences2008Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors, unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman [ v. California ], 386 U.S. 18 , [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial)], have been met. [Citations omitted.]" Swinney, 280 Kan. at 780 , 127 P.3d 261 . 2008Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors, unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman [ v. California ], 386 U.S. 18 , [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial)], have been met. [Citations omitted.]" Swinney, 280 Kan. at 780 , 127 P.3d 261 . | 8 | 2006–2008 |
State v. Hill
red
2 sentences2007As Justice Carol A. Beier explained in her article, Lurching Toward the Light: Alternative Means and Multiple Acts Law in Kansas, 44 Washburn L.J. 275 (2005), in adopting the two-part harmless error test for the failure to give a multiple acts instruction, the court in State v. Hill, 271 Kan. 929 , 26 P.3d 1267 (2001), was seeking to avoid automatic reversal and develop “an analytical pattern to distinguish two subsets of multiple acts cases, those that truly required reversal because of a greater probability of lack of unanimity and those that did not.” Beier, 44 Washburn L.J. at 304. 2007Inherent in the holding of Hill is the conclusion that this failure constitutes error: after this failure to elect or instruct, the court resolved “the harmless error-structural error conflict.” 271 Kan. at 934 . | 8 | 2001–2007 |
Ward v. Kansas
green
2 sentences2020But in more recent multiple acts cases, our Supreme Court has applied the harmless error standard in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 565 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 (2012). 2016If a party requested a jury instruction not given by the district court or objected before the district court to an instruction that was given, an appellate court tests reversibility under the harmless error paradigm set out in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). | 7 | 2012–2021 |
State v. Calderon
green
2 sentences2021And because the court found this error "implicate[d] the basic consideration of fairness," it did not analyze prejudice under the harmless error standard, "even though the error might have had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial." Calderon, 270 Kan. at 253 . 2005Although Calderon indicated that a harmless error inquiry could be inappropriate in certain circumstances when a defendant had been excluded from a trial, see 270 Kan. at 248-53 , subsequent cases have limited its structural error approach to its unique facts. | 5 | 2001–2021 |
State v. Bridges
green
2 sentences2015We have observed that, as a practical matter, the result of the harmless error evaluation depends on the outcome of the Chapman constitutional standard. “[Bjotli the constitutional and non-constitutional error clearly arise from tire very same acts and omissions,” and the constitutional standard is more rigorous. *238 Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1015 (citing State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1111 , 299 P.3d 292 [2013]). 2015Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1015 . | 5 | 2014–2015 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
green
2 sentences2007The Van Arsdall Court stated that a harmless error analysis is dependent on the following factors, all of which are readily accessible to a reviewing court: “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” 475 U.S. at 684 . 2007The Van Arsdall Court stated that a harmless error analysis is dependent on the following factors, all of which are readily accessible to a reviewing court: "the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case." 475 U.S. at 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 . | 5 | 1994–2007 |
State v. Sanders
green
2 sentences2000In Sanders, 258 Kan. at 418 , Justice 'Lockett said: “The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence in a criminal case is governed by . . . the harmless error rule .... 1999In discussing this rule in State v. Sanders, 258 Kan. 409, 418 , 904 P.2d 951 (1995), Justice Lockett stated: “The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence in a criminal case is governed by . . . the harmless error rule. . . . | 5 | 1997–2000 |
Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co.
green
2 sentences2000It affords no basis for a reversal of a judgment and must be disregarded.’ [Citation omitted.]” Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co., 251 Kan. 300, 308 , 836 P.2d 1102 (1992). 2000It affords no basis for a reversal of a judgment and must be disregarded.’ [Citation omitted.]” Tamplin v. Star Lumber & Supply Co., 251 Kan. 300, 308 , 836 P.2d 1102 (1992). | 5 | 1993–2000 |
State v. Herbel
green
2 sentences2015We have observed that, as a practical matter, the result of the harmless error evaluation depends on the outcome of the Chapman constitutional standard. “[Bjotli the constitutional and non-constitutional error clearly arise from tire very same acts and omissions,” and the constitutional standard is more rigorous. *238 Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1015 (citing State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1111 , 299 P.3d 292 [2013]). 2015We have observed that, as a practical matter, the result of the harmless error evaluation depends on the outcome of the Chapman constitutional standard. “[Bjotli the constitutional and non-constitutional error clearly arise from tire very same acts and omissions,” and the constitutional standard is more rigorous. *238 Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1015 (citing State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1111 , 299 P.3d 292 [2013]). | 4 | 2014–2015 |
Arizona v. Fulminante
green
2 sentences2005Ed. 2d 302 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991), however, a majority of the United States Supreme Court specifically held that the harmless error rule did apply to the erroneous admission of an involuntary confession. 2000Ed. 2d 302 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991)], the Supreme Court segregated those cases in which harmless error analysis does not apply from tire cases in which harmless error analysis is appropriate. [Citation omitted.] Harmless error analysis does not apply when there is a ‘structural defect in the constitution of the trial mechanism.’ [Citation omitted.] The Fulminante Court cited examples of structural defects as total deprivations of the right to counsel and partial or biased trial judges. [Citation omitted.] Conversely, die Fulminante Court emphasized that harmless error analysis applies where a | 4 | 2000–2015 |
State v. Henry
green
2 sentences2007Citing State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 7, 44 P.3d 466 (2002), our Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 277 Kan. 413, 423, 85 P.3d 1226 (2004), set forth the harmless error rule as follows: “ ‘Normally, the admission or exclusion of evidence is measured by the harmless error rule. 2007Citing State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 7, 44 P.3d 466 (2002), our Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 277 Kan. 413, 423, 85 P.3d 1226 (2004), set forth the harmless error rule as follows: “ ‘Normally, the admission or exclusion of evidence is measured by the harmless error rule. | 4 | 2003–2007 |
State v. Mullins
green
2 sentences2002We are convinced that it was the function of the jury to hear the testimony of the witnesses as to what the child said, and then to make a determination of the reliability of the child’s statements.” In other cases where one witness had been allowed to comment on the credibility of another, for example, State v. Mullins, 267 Kan. 84, 94-97 , 977 P.2d 931 (1999), the harmless error rule has been applied. 2002We are convinced that it was the function of the jury to hear the testimony of the witnesses as to what the child said, and then to make a determination of the reliability of the child’s statements.” In other cases where one witness had been allowed to comment on the credibility of another, for example, State v. Mullins, 267 Kan. 84, 94-97 , 977 P.2d 931 (1999), the harmless error rule has been applied. | 4 | 2001–2005 |
| State v. Soto green | 3 | 2014–2015 |
| State v. Armstrong green | 3 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Gadelkarim red | 3 | 2001–2014 |
| State v. Gunby green | 3 | 2007–2011 |
| State v. Kesselring green | 3 | 2006–2007 |
| State v. McCorkendale red | 3 | 2001–2004 |
| State v. Bell green | 3 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Gilliland green | 2 | 2020–2021 |
| United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez green | 2 | 2010–2020 |
| State v. Bolze-Sann green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| Brecht v. Abrahamson red | 2 | 2012–2016 |
| State v. Boorigie green | 2 | 2006–2015 |
| State v. Adams green | 2 | 2011–2012 |
| Sullivan v. Louisiana green | 2 | 1997–2010 |
| In Re Cheyanne F. green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Davis green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Wardlaw green | 2 | 2009–2010 |
| State v. Leitner green | 2 | 2002–2009 |
| State v. Swanigan green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Clark green | 2 | 2001–2006 |
| Smith v. Printup green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| People v. Gallon green | 2 | 1998–2002 |
| Crease v. State green | 2 | 1998–2001 |
| State v. Bowser green | 2 | 1998–1999 |
| State v. Getz green | 2 | 1993–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.